WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: help with a form please

for

From: Geoff Munn
Date: Mar 18, 2007 1:20AM

On 18/03/2007, at 6:44 PM, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Mar 2007, Geoff Munn wrote:
>
>> Ok, I didn't make any assertion that it was an accessibility issue, I
>> just referred to any 'accessibility guidelines' that the original
>> author may be required to comply with.
>
> That's quite an explanation, isn't it?
>
>> If the requirement for height
>> and width attributes is present in such guidelines, then maybe the
>> guidelines are mis-named, but that doesn't make me wrong.
>> Here's an example:
>> http://www.e.govt.nz/standards/web-guidelines/web-guidelines-v-2-1/
>> chapter6.html
>
> It's named "New Zealand Government Web Guidelines v2.1", and it
> does not
> present the requirement to use width and height attributes as an
> accessibility guideline at all.

Chapter 1, '1.1 Purpose':

"We provide practical ways to express these values in public sector
websites. However, we don't attempt to cover every circumstance with
a prescriptive rule. Rather, we encourage you to make sound
judgements based on an understanding and appreciation of the four
principles above, and how they can be applied to provide sound,
trustworthy and truly accessible public sector websites."

Before you seize on the words 'encourage to make sound
judgements....', I have to add that many of the rules in this
document are actually Cabinet-mandated requirements and the 'height
and width attributes' requirement is a 'must' (their words).
Department managers/CEOs must explain to the SSC why they do not
measure up against these guidelines.

>
>> Well you may be right,
>
> What I stated about "placeholders" is expert consensus.
>
>> but people are still required in some cases to
>> comply with the old WAI priorities.
>
> Are they? Why do you refer to such a rule without even saying it's
> wrong,

I'm not saying it's wrong. The WAI priorities are fundamentally
quite good, but when they get overly prescriptive (especially when
they're incorporated into other guidelines) people such as yourself
jump all over it.

> when a) most web authors are _not_ required by anyone to comply
> with WAI
> rules,

Any NZ Government web development project is required to follow
these. It's an SSC directive. The Queensland Federal Government
have their own set of requirements (which use priorities 1 and 2 -
(http://www.governmentict.qld.gov.au/02_infostand/standards/
is26.htm), so do other organisations which may or may not incorporate
the WAI prorities.


> b) those who are can easily find items that allow exceptions in
> special cases and utilize them, and c) they can and should violate the
> rules as required by accessibility when the rules are all wrong,
> though we
> can probably allow exceptions to this if the author is in real
> danger of
> getting prosecuted and killed for such violations, for example.
>

So how does government web design fit into your neat and tidy view of
the world? You won't get shot at dawn, but you won't get any
government business either.

> (My point is that most of the "accessibility guidelines" are just
> babble
> and exercises in producing impressive-looking documents, to be
> violated in
> practice even by their authors and even in the documents
> themselves. Few
> people are forced to follow them, or even pressed hard. This is sad
> because much of them is actually good advice, but this surely
> implies that
> we need to follow the bad advice and tell our fellow authors to do
> so.)

Well that may be your experience, but I've had a better time myself...

>
>> Not 'completely wrong' actually,
>
> Well, each of the statements you made was wrong. How much more
> wrong can
> you be?

I am not wrong. You just like to cast things in black and white.

>
>> - - the practicalities of what some
>> people are required to do.
>
> Many web authors are required to do stupid things that are hostile to
> accessibility and to disabled people.

That's true.

> That's no excuse for misrepresenting
> some rules and imaginary rules the way you did.

I didn't.

Geoff